Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[Bedrockgames]

Right. But to me the whole point of roleplaying is that you try to imagine that and immerse into it the best you can. It may be far from perfect, but the goal still is clear. I really don't see what's even the point of playing if we give up on this.

For me this is half the fun of making a character and then trying to play the character. Or more broadly as groups. I remember making a campaign where I sat down for like two weeks and thought about what the social and cultural ramifications of elves being immortal but suscpeptible to death through things like injury would be. It is a pretty common trope in RPGs and fantasy, and it can be fun to sit down and think 'but has anyone considered this aspect?'. Ultimately I ended up with different elven societies responding to the problem of immortality contingent on not being injured with different cultural responses. Is this how it would really play out? I have no idea. But I had a lot of fun and the players seem to find my answers to these kinds of questions interesting in play

 

[Manbearcat]

You don't need intricate combat mechanics for that. Like you said, you can handle it relatively rules light or even completely freeform.


First. Most people have better intuitive understanding of social interaction than combat. I don't think this is at all controversial. But that's not even the main point. Resolving talking via talking has very strong correspondence, resolving combat via talking doesn't. You can do the latter, but it doesn't have the same advantage than the former has.

I read you.

But here is the thing.

You consider yourself rational, well-informed. and well-reasoned. Confident in your arguments.

I consider myself the same and I’m similarly confident.

In all of our exchanges (and the innumerable others on these boards), how many times have folks minds been changed by people who consider themselves rational, well-reasoned, we’ll-informed folks who are confident in their arguments!

So some encoded method of resolving these inevitably intractable social interactions (the same kind that would be happening in the imagined space by the same kinds of folks like you and me!) would be a mighty nice facilitator-of-play imo!

 

[Garthanos]

But of course you can play a character different from you

A character with different social capabilities to me.. sorry no...

 

[Bedrockgames]

So some encoded method of resolving these inevitably intractable social interactions (the same kind that would be happening in the imagined space by the same kinds of folks like you and me!) would be a mighty nice facilitator-of-play imo!

This is actually one of the reasons I dislike strong mechanical means for resolving social interactions (just as a personal preference; more on this further down). People do what they want, what they have to, what other factors are driving them. Truly changing a persons mind is very rare, changing their heart even more rare. But even in discrete moments of social interaction where it isn't about changing the persons view but convincing them to do or not do something (as an example the guard being talked into giving you the key), I think boiling that to a roll of some kind, feels very much like it falls short for me, because some people, under no circumstances unless they are coerced are going to give in (especially if they are working a job where they know they will be held responsible if the key is missed). For me, I much prefer to deal with this through RP and knowing the characters motivations. How this plays out will obviously vary from group to group: so if you want a consistent outcome whenever a player offers Y, that might not be a good fit. But what I am more interested in are characters with consistent motivations. A good example of how this might be used is in Goodfellas when they steal the security guards key and make a copy. And do so they found his weakness (women), had a woman distract him, and made the key copy without him knowing. That is all fairly manageable social interaction stuff in an RPG if the GM is playing with motivations fairly. This also allows the players to engage in the problem and puzzle solving aspect of RPGs that for me is a huge part of the enjoyment of play (i.e. how do we get that key? How do we find a way of distracting him? etc). One of the things that instantly kills the fun for me as a player is stuff like this being handled by a roll

That said, tastes vary, I find you have to run the game for the group of players you game with, not with a group of players who are replicas of your own tastes and preferences. So I am not going to spoil it for others if they want to use a system with social mechanics, and when I run games, I try either pick or make a system that balances my desire for social interactions being driven by what happens in play, with some players desires for a mechanical approach. One interesting observation I do have here is people themselves are often inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent in their preferences (what bothers someone today, might not bother them in a different moment that is pretty much the same but for some reason doesn't trouble them when it arises, and the opposite: what doesn't bother someone yesterday might suddenly bother them today; and it all may just be today they happened to scrutinize things a little more than they did before). Anyone who has had protracted (Edit: corrected this word) discussions or debates about movies probably has seen the same thing. So I think be adaptable to the players and to what is driving them at a given moment is also something that makes me a little flexible on this point in practice. For me, at the end of the day I want to have a good time gaming with my friends. I am much less concerned about what box that fits into by the end of the session, and much less concerned about whether the game did everything exactly the way I would have wanted it to.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Also, if you don't want to immerse and roleplay situations like this and just rather roll the dice to move on, then what is even the point? This is the good stuff, why would you want to roll the dice to skip it?

No one has said that it should be skipped. A dice roll being used to resolve the matter, or to inform the situation in a meaningful way. It’s meant as a randomizing element so that there’s something going on besides “GM says”.

So if you’re trying to convince someone to help you, you’d still portray that in some way…state your case, bring up whatever points you think are relevant…and the GM would portray the NPC. But once the situation is clear… you want X and have mentioned Y and Z as your supporting argument…then we roll to see how it turns out.

No one is saying to just skip any/all character portrayal.

You could argue it technically isn't terribly much 'a game' at that point. Which is not a big deal in my book. RPGs are very unlike most other games to begin with and the term 'game' is vague anyway.

But of course you can play a character different from you and it is weird to think that you couldn't. Most of the characterisation doesn't depend on the rules. Actors can play characters that are not like them (even when improvising) and authors can write characters that are not like them. They don't need rules to do this.

As you say, RPGs are their own thing. I can’t play Sherlock Holmes as brilliantly as Doyle can because I don't benefit from also being the author of the story. Doyle is authoring both the character and the mystery with which the character’s engaged. So it’s very easy for him to portray intuitive leaps by Holmes. He also benefits from being able to edit and redraft his work until it suits. Not so with an RPG player.

If I’m playing a brilliant character of the Holmes variety, I don’t have such benefits. What I may have in place are game mechanics that help me portray such a character, either in the form of character/class abilities and the like, or perhaps simply in how the game plays.

Could I fake an English accent and ramp up my vocabulary a bit, and use some catch phrases like “Elementary!” or “The game is afoot!”? Sure. I can portray Holmes at the surface level. But that doesn’t make me a brilliant detective. It doesn’t impart on me what it would feel like to be capable of such brilliant insights any more than swinging a foam sword makes me know what it’s like to be a warrior.

I think boiling that to a roll of some kind, feels very much like it falls short for me, because some people, under no circumstances unless they are coerced are going to give in (especially if they are working a job where they know they will be held responsible if the key is missed).

Right. But who decides that the NPC absolutely won’t give in? In a more traditional game, this is likely something that the GM has decided beforehand, or (in my experience) at the moment it becomes relevant to play. This is the GM determining how the situation will go.

A more narrative game would say to let the roll determine the outcome. So if the player rolls poorly and the guard is unconvinced to assist, then the GM would say something like “You can see a zealous light in his eyes as he curls his lip at your offer of a bribe” or what have you.

The second removes some of the GM authority and replaces it with input from the system.

A good example of how this might be used is in Goodfellas when they steal the security guards key and make a copy. And do so they found his weakness (women), had a woman distract him, and made the key copy without him knowing. That is all fairly manageable social interaction stuff in an RPG if the GM is playing with motivations fairly.

This is a great example. But how is it played out? No rolls at all? The PCs don’t make a roll to learn the guard has a vice they can exploit?

If all of this is simply determined ahead of time, and the PCs just assemble the info in the proper way then I don’t see how this isn’t a case of the GM authoring the problem, the solution, and the outcome, with the players merely working to discover the GM’s story.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No one has said that it should be skipped. A dice roll being used to resolve the matter, or to inform the situation in a meaningful way. It’s meant as a randomizing element so that there’s something going on besides “GM says”.

So if you’re trying to convince someone to help you, you’d still portray that in some way…state your case, bring up whatever points you think are relevant…and the GM would portray the NPC. But once the situation is clear… you want X and have mentioned Y and Z as your supporting argument…then we roll to see how it turns out.

No one is saying to just skip any/all character portrayal.

Right. And this is common way to handle this and how I usually do it in games like D&D. And it is fine, but it is not the only way to do it. These are things that are really easy to do freeform, and many games do just that. Also, the important part why I'm fine with this in some tabletop games is that it is used only "against" NPCs. The GM has a different role, their intuitive understanding of the NPCs probably isn't as deep as the players have of their characters, and advocating for the NPCs isn't their only job anyway. But I absolutely wouldn't want PC decisions to resolved via a dice roll. My role as a player is to make decisions for my character, so if we outsource that to the rules or the dice, I no longer need to be there.

As you say, RPGs are their own thing. I can’t play Sherlock Holmes as brilliantly as Doyle can because I don't benefit from also being the author of the story. Doyle is authoring both the character and the mystery with which the character’s engaged. So it’s very easy for him to portray intuitive leaps by Holmes. He also benefits from being able to edit and redraft his work until it suits. Not so with an RPG player.

If I’m playing a brilliant character of the Holmes variety, I don’t have such benefits. What I may have in place are game mechanics that help me portray such a character, either in the form of character/class abilities and the like, or perhaps simply in how the game plays.

Could I fake an English accent and ramp up my vocabulary a bit, and use some catch phrases like “Elementary!” or “The game is afoot!”? Sure. I can portray Holmes at the surface level. But that doesn’t make me a brilliant detective. It doesn’t impart on me what it would feel like to be capable of such brilliant insights any more than swinging a foam sword makes me know what it’s like to be a warrior.

Sure. But this is about problem solving or "winning" aspect of the characterisation. And, yes, rule structures help there, though they might not necessarily be terribly immersive. But that's really is not the core of characterisation, at least not to me. Holmes is sort of manic depressive emotionally stunted unconventional genius. You only need the rules to help with the genius part.

 

[Manbearcat]

This is actually one of the reasons I dislike strong mechanical means for resolving social interactions (just as a personal preference; more on this further down). People do what they want, what they have to, what other factors are driving them. Truly changing a persons mind is very rare, changing their heart even more rare. But even in discrete moments of social interaction where it isn't about changing the persons view but convincing them to do or not do something (as an example the guard being talked into giving you the key), I think boiling that to a roll of some kind, feels very much like it falls short for me, because some people, under no circumstances unless they are coerced are going to give in (especially if they are working a job where they know they will be held responsible if the key is missed). For me, I much prefer to deal with this through RP and knowing the characters motivations. How this plays out will obviously vary from group to group: so if you want a consistent outcome whenever a player offers Y, that might not be a good fit. But what I am more interested in are characters with consistent motivations. A good example of how this might be used is in Goodfellas when they steal the security guards key and make a copy. And do so they found his weakness (women), had a woman distract him, and made the key copy without him knowing. That is all fairly manageable social interaction stuff in an RPG if the GM is playing with motivations fairly. This also allows the players to engage in the problem and puzzle solving aspect of RPGs that for me is a huge part of the enjoyment of play (i.e. how do we get that key? How do we find a way of distracting him? etc). One of the things that instantly kills the fun for me as a player is stuff like this being handled by a roll

That said, tastes vary, I find you have to run the game for the group of players you game with, not with a group of players who are replicas of your own tastes and preferences. So I am not going to spoil it for others if they want to use a system with social mechanics, and when I run games, I try either pick or make a system that balances my desire for social interactions being driven by what happens in play, with some players desires for a mechanical approach. One interesting observation I do have here is people themselves are often inconsistent or seemingly inconsistent in their preferences (what bothers someone today, might not bother them in a different moment that is pretty much the same but for some reason doesn't trouble them when it arises, and the opposite: what doesn't bother someone yesterday might suddenly bother them today; and it all may just be today they happened to scrutinize things a little more than they did before). Anyone who has had protracted (Edit: corrected this word) discussions or debates about movies probably has seen the same thing. So I think be adaptable to the players and to what is driving them at a given moment is also something that makes me a little flexible on this point in practice. For me, at the end of the day I want to have a good time gaming with my friends. I am much less concerned about what box that fits into by the end of the session, and much less concerned about whether the game did everything exactly the way I would have wanted it to.

Gotcha.

Here is the thing though. It doesn’t have to be “one roll (to convince/diplomance or whatever).”

Take PBtA social conflict resolution. When you seduce/parley/persuade (etc) you need some kind of leverage or you need to exert force. Now you can do the latter, but you’re assuming the liability that comes with the threat of violence and you’re going to be held accountable for it. So not putting the looming escalation of violence on the table means that you’re engaging with the NPC in a protracted exchange to identify the NPC’s dramatic need (Instinct in PBtA parlance) for leverage. That will mean lots of conversation + moves triggered and made (Defying Danger, Reading a Person etc). The conversation can take lots of twists and turns as a result and the gamestate and situation (and possibly setting) will dynamically change as a result.

Same thing goes with Dogs in the Vineyard. Your dice put down as your Traits/Belongings/Relationships employed in the effort of “Just Talking” aren’t just those dice (and how you manage your dice pool with your subsequent See/Raise/Reverse the Blow etc) but also what you say. And they all plays out back and forth until the matter is settled and someone can’t go on (so they have to Fold or Escalate to Violence or Mortal…and assume that liability and be held accountable for it).

And there’s lots of other different but distantly kindred schemes.

That stuff “feels” like a vital, dynamic social exchange with things being said and attached moves being made and dice beig thrown and the gamestate responding until all matters are settled.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Right. But who decides that the NPC absolutely won’t give in? In a more traditional game, this is likely something that the GM has decided beforehand, or (in my experience) at the moment it becomes relevant to play. This is the GM determining how the situation will go.

A more narrative game would say to let the roll determine the outcome. So if the player rolls poorly and the guard is unconvinced to assist, then the GM would say something like “You can see a zealous light in his eyes as he curls his lip at your offer of a bribe” or what have you.

The GM decides for NPCs, the Players decide for PCs. It isn't the GM determining how the situation will go if he is playing fairly, because how the situation goes isn't the point, the point is an honest character interaction. The players are still free to do what they want (they could stab the NPC to death and take what they need from them for example). But the point is the GM should have a clear idea going in of what the NPCs motives and and not fit those motives to some kind of outcome the GM wants. At least for me, that is how I approach it. It still isn't going to appeal to you if you don't like this kind of play but much of the reason I play this way is, as a GM I hate having preset outcomes and I hate guiding the players along. All I care about when I am running the NPC is what that NPC is motivated by, cares about, and what responsibilities they have. If the players make a proposal to that NPC or try to trick that NPC in some way (like in the goodfellas example), I am going to honest think through how the NPC reacts based on what I know about their motives (and if I can't decide for some reason, I might roll a die, but usually I have a good sense of it).

I am not saying you can't have a more narrative approach. I am not trying to persuade someone who wants something different than I do in an RPG, that they should want what I want. I am saying this is what works for me. Even when I play narrative games, I much prefer something closer to what I am describing like Hillfolk that tends to be about things like what the characters want (and there are mechanics underlying some aspects of that but I find them fairly unobtrusive to the above style that I outlined). This is actually a game I really like because it does a good job of captured the 'all we did was role-play' aspect of play that can be fun, but because it is oriented around scenes and scene framing it doesn't just meandering and become characters talking endlessly in an inn: it leads to dramatic places.

The second removes some of the GM authority and replaces it with input from the system.

Sure, if you don't like GM authority in these situations, by all means use these systems. I don't have a problem with GM authority extending to NPCs motivations and behaviors. If a don't like how a particular GM does things, I might not play in games where that person GMs, but mostly I game with people who, even if they think about NPCs differently than I do, are good faith when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Gotcha.

Here is the thing though. It doesn’t have to be “one roll (to convince/diplomance or whatever).”

I get that. I just used a roll because it is an example of a social mechanic that particularly grates against what I am talking about, and it rolling for social interaction even comes up in games like D&D (at least in recent editions).

 

[Thomas Shey]

It has been explained several times and it also is super obvious. So at this point I'm not sure what more can be said. You can talk for real, you usually can't fight fore real.

And yes, you could resolve fights by talking about the fight,* but that is removed from what is being emulated in way resolving talking via talking isn't.

The argument is, without context and a lot of factors you can't bring to the table, the social interaction isn't really any more like its real equivalent than the fight would be.

I'll note that you can absolutely narrate a fight sequence as long as you have some idea of how they work at least in a fictional sense and come to a collective conclusion. I did it MUSHing any number of times. All it requires is participant players of good will who want to see how the fight comes out rather than want to "win".